UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sarah Keeling, Piers de Wilde, Dmitry Sachkov and Alexander Greenall, StoneTurn
A New Standard for Worldwide Freezing Orders, Dos Santos v Unitel A worldwide freezing order (WFO) is a court injunction that freezes a defendant’s assets globally to prevent dissipation. This powerful tool was historically not easily obtainable in Eng - lish courts, which suggested claimants needed to meet a higher threshold on their case merits. In September 2024 the Court of Appeal hand - ed judgment in Isabel Dos Santos v Unitel SA, which relaxed requirements for securing WFOs, paving the way for their growing popularity. The dispute in question was between the Ango - lan telecommunications company Unitel and Isabel dos Santos, the country’s wealthiest busi - nesswoman and the daughter of José Eduardo dos Santos, the President of Angola from 1979 to 2017. Unitel alleged that the loans it had issued to Isabel dos Santos when she was its direc - tor were uncommercial and aimed at benefitting herself. Unitel had obtained a WFO in English courts, and dos Santos challenged it partly on the basis that Unitel had failed to demonstrate a strong enough case on the merits. The Court of Appeal turned down her claim. Lord Justice Flaux argued that for the WFO, it suffices that the claim is not frivolous and that there is “serious issue to be tried” , which is the exact same test that applies to applications for interim injunctions. This marks a departure from a strict - er view that the WFO claimant must show it has “the better of the argument” to justify a freeze, which was applied in two High Court cases in 2022 (Harrington & Charles Trading Co. Ltd. v Mehta) and 2023 (Chowgule & Co Pte. Ltd. v Shire). This recent clarification should enable victims of fraud (as claimants) to secure WFOs more easily and quickly to stop a fraudster’s assets
Baker case, when three UWOs were discharged by the court and the NCA faced substantial legal costs. To revive the interest in UWOs, the Eco - nomic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 introduced cost protections, which shielded the agencies from potentially high costs in case of unsuccessful UWO applications, as well as broadened the criteria for UWOs. The NCA resumed applications and even received its first UWO in Northern Ireland in May 2024. Unlike the NCA, the SFO did not obtain a single UWO until January 2025. There is a significant difference between the two agencies in terms of the UWO application. The NCA typically used UWOs in cases looking into the origins of mul - ti-million assets belonging to foreign high net worth individuals living in the UK. As a result, they became colloquially known as “McMafia orders” , after the BBC’s organised crime drama. By contrast, the SFO’s inaugural UWO targets a GBP1.5 million Lake District property owned by Claire Schools, the ex-wife of a former English solicitor, Timothy Schools. He was convicted in 2022 for a GBP100 million investment fraud impacting around 500 investors and is currently serving 14 years in prison. The SFO has reasons to believe that stolen funds from that scheme were invested in the acquisition of the Lake Dis - trict property. Nick Ephgrave, the SFO Director since Septem - ber 2023, called the January 2025 UWO “mile- stone case” . He said: “Wherever criminal assets have been hidden or dispersed, we will… explore new methods to recover funds for victims and the public purse” . This might suggest that the agency would likely rely on – or at least, consider applying for – this tool more frequently moving forward.
389 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook